yeah, and don't forget all the armed militias that will RISE UP to counter the Illuminati and The New World Order and the Zionist Entity, and every other phantom that a paranoid guy sitting alone in his desert shack, wearing nothing but a pair of filthy reeking BVDs, can dream up in his feverish, sex-starved brain

My point with the commentary about the teardrop gang tattoo was to dispel the myth that a person with a teardrop tattoo is an imminent threat to you. If you arenít involved in gang culture (e.g. appear as a rival gang member), then the guy wearing a Raiderís cap and sporting a teardrop tattoo and other gang tats who is waiting in line in front of you at the Yucaipa 7-11, holding bag of Funyuns and a Slurpee, poses no threat to you. Heís not going to take the stirrer out of your 24 oz Hazelnut coffee and stab you in the eye socket with it, despite how many gangland shows have appeared on TV.

So you can relax your grip on your .454 Casul and pull your hand out of your Patagonia briefs and perhaps think about cooler stuff on the way to Tahquiz like flashing the Vampire or hang dogging Paisano Overhang until you get it dialed.

Gang members are pathetic idiots and you give them too much credit. There isnít a ďruthless Darwinian selection processĒ to join a gang, unless it involves a questionnaire asking if you are A) mentally retarded and B) excited about picking your nose all day. If you friendís brother couldnít make it into a gang, then sadly his cerebral palsy must have been too severe or he failed the complicated questionnaire listed in the previous sentence. Iím not here to make light of your friendís brotherís tragedy, but people in gangs are many, many frijoles short of a full burrito.

Gang violence is primarily between gang members. Sure, innocent people can get caught in crossfire during any escalation of violence or crime but for the most part itís trash killing trash. People outside of that culture arenít really on the radar.

A few other facts that may interest people who havenít been exposed to gang culture (aside from the media drama and Hollywoodís exaggerated silly portrayals) is 1) how young most gang members are (i.e. 13 years old), 2) how physically slight and unintimidating they are, and 3) how incredibly f*#king stupid they are. Most are functionally illiterate; the fact that some have figured out how to use toilet paper and others have learned how to eat their mashed potatoes and peas with a spoon instead of rubbing it all over their foreheads, is, based on their baseline cognitive impairment, impressive.

Tragically, gang bangers have embraced a persona that makes them feel important somehow which revolves around an ethos of senseless violence (e.g. killing another gang member from another neighborhood because heís simply walking down the sidewalk) and cowardly shootings (e.g. drive byes and car to car highway shootings) that makes no rational sense outside of their narrow pathetic world but has itís own reward system within the gang. The cost of this behavior to rest of society is high: incarceration, fear of violence, the expense of law enforcement etc., not to mention the cost of the wasted human potential of both the victim and perpetrator.

My point of bringing all of this up was simply to point out that a baldheaded tatted up latino dude in a wifebeater with teardrop tattoos should not make you get all paranoid and wound up. Relax. Chill out. Try being nice instead of openly hostile. If you feel the context is appropriate you could even ask him about the significance of some of the tattoos, but I suspect by your contempt and anger that this might pose a challenge. Many gang members are proud of their tattoos [like many people with fashion accessories that you may find silly (e.g. gauged ears)] and enjoy talking about them if you show genuine interest and arenít a judgmental as#@&%e.

Perhaps your own tension and fear and misinterpretation of a threat can be replaced by an awareness and compassion that might help you be less angry and less confrontational. You create the world you see.

To get back to the theme of main thread (gun debate issues), and to respond to your point that ďyou apparently think it's much more of a problem/hassle to [conceal carry] do so than it actually is.Ē Yes I absolutely do! Even a loaded Glock 26 in an Uncle Mikeís undershirt-shirt holster is a pain. Itís heavy. I donít feel mortally threatened to carry a weapon all the time as cheap insurance for the infinitesimal chance of really needing a gun to defend myself. Sure, I can imagine a scenario where one really needs a gun (and then you probably really need a gun), but IĎm not just not in those circumstance, ever.

I can also get angry and confrontational and am self-aware enough that having a gun might cause me to loose rational perspective and push things too far with tragic results. Itís also easy to mis-judge situations and perhaps use it against the wrong person, as was the case with a concealed carrier who witnessed the Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffordsí shooting and nearly shot an innocent guy who took the gun away from the shooter. Accidental discharges can occur too. I feel that most conceal carriers are not honest with the danger they pose to themselves and others by carrying a gun. Some can handle the responsibility, others, Iím not so sure.

I can understand those who feel they need/want to carry, but I think many are preoccupied with phantom fears and imagined threats that are blown way, way out of proportion, e.g. teardrop tattoos.

You still haven't explained how you think you know so much, which makes me wonder what you are hiding. Don't you think we should have the ability to assess your credibility?

For myself, I don't need that; I'm asking for others. For myself, I read your generalizations and know that you don't know what you are talking about.

I've personally known dozens of gang MEMBER individuals from a variety of gangs ranging from the Diablos to the South Side Mafia. I've known Latinos, blacks, and whites. I don't feel in the slightest threatened by them in general, particularly in non-turf places, such as amusement parks and other non-contested areas.

I'm done responding to you because I don't care for your lectures, particularly when I know first-hand that your generalizations are unfounded and that you are lecturing to somebody besides me, because addressed to me, what you have to say is also unfounded.

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failedówhere the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Bottom line for me, I trust all of you, my friends, fellow citizens and relatives, more than the Government. Seems like an easy choice to me.

When the time comes that the army and government decide that elections are done with and it's time for dictatorship to restore America to her rightful place, the gun nuts will be on their side. Believe it.

Thank you, couchmaster, and I also entirely agree with the "backstop" idea.

Of course, that gets Americans at most gun OWNERSHIP. It cannot ground the right of carry in public. On that note, this sentiment is very well-founded!

I too worry about the abstract threat of a government takeover more than the day to day reality if gun violence.

Dirtbag rightly notes that the right of ownership as "backstop" doesn't motivate the right of carry, which in the minds of many is synonymous with the "epidemic of gun violence."

Only the inalienable right of self defense (which government neither grants nor can take away) can ground the right of carry.

However, as with all rights, the government IS within ITS rights to regulate that right in such a way as to balance the inalienable right with the public welfare.

As I've argued repeatedly, I don't believe that there IS any "epidemic of gun violence" that needs huge steps and federal laws to "balance."

However, that said, I DO think that getting a carry license should be harder than it is. To whit....

My wife and I are finishing our CCW course tonight. Last night we spent hours listening to a state-licensed instructor, and I've been struck thus far by several things:

1) On the law, she is pretty clueless, which is shocking. I had hoped to gain far more knowledge than my own research has granted me. Not only does she not know as much as several of us in the class, on several important points she is outright wrong. So, she's of no legal help, and the laws MATTER!

2) This is a "basic pistol safety course" by name. It is indeed BASIC! It's virtually at the level of, "This is the muzzle, which is the end the bullet comes out of." And so on. Tonight we'll do our range test, which amounts to: "You'll need to get 80% of your shots on the paper at 15 yards." REALLY? On the paper, huh? You mean the man-sized paper?

Look, if you can't do FAR better than that, you have NO business carrying a gun in public!!! At 25 yards I can get 80% of my shots within a six-inch group, and I don't think of myself as AT ALL "good." My wife can do as well at 15 yards, and she's shot our gun during TWO sessions so far. ON THE PAPER?!??? Whaaaaatttt???

Seeing "the bar" one must get over to get a CCW in Colorado, I'm pretty appalled. Here's what it SHOULD be:

* You must have a CCW license to CARRY: open or concealed. Then your choice is tactical rather than simply that you open-carry because you can't or won't qualify for the CCW.

* The CCW should be pretty hard to get. You should be able to shoot AT LEAST as well as my wife can, and the course should include LOTS of law and tactical scenarios under the law. And the test should NOT be multiple choice with a caveat like this: "If you pass the test, it doesn't mean we'll sign off on your certificate, and if you fail the test, it doesn't mean we won't sign off on your certificate." The former should be true, but not the latter, and you SHOULD have to get at least 75% on a test like this!

* People that would moan about how this unduly raises the bar or that it will be too expensive for the "poor" to get would leave me cold. This is a DEADLY WEAPON, and you have to get over a higher bar than I've described to get a drivers license! And if you can't prioritize the time/expense to get GOOD with your gun and pay for such a certification process, you clearly are not financially responsible enough to be carrying in the first place.

* There should be mandatory insurance, such as auto insurance. When you carry, your risks of lawsuit and the need of criminal defense skyrocket! No standard policies, including "umbrella" policies cover these risks. If you are going to be a responsible carrier, you MUST be financially responsible as well.

* Finally, if the CCW bar was higher, at least like I'm describing, the cops could instantly know (as could the public) that the person they see with a gun is both COMMITTED and COMPETENT. As it stands, pretty much any goofball (and there are a couple in our class!) can get a CCW. In a "shall issue" state, the competency and responsibility bar should be MUCH higher!

Under such a model, the criminal element would already be at a legal disadvantage, which is precisely what we want to see.

So, yes, CARRY... but with competency, responsibility, and commitment. The right of self-defense CAN be balanced with the public welfare. And making such a license be "shall issue" but coupled with a quite high bar would go far toward achieving this balance.

Yeah, well, that's why I'm not posting on the "what is mind" thread. It's impossible to have a serious, rigorous discussion without "length." And that means that the thread-attention-span is a deal-killer.

Contrary to old Korean War complaints about the .30 cal M 1 Carbine, they are a VERY NICE shooting rifle with good ballistics. A 300 yard gun as well. The Auto ordinance model , like all others is subject to a magazine problem as many after market knock offs are flooding the market. Older GI issue used ones are getting rare as they are bought. All of my failures to feed have been due to the magazines, not the gun.

As far as mine, it will hit anything you accurately aim at - which through the flip style peep site may seem a bit inaccurate at first thought, however, IT ISNT, much to my surprise. A clay pigeon at 100 yards is EASY off hand.

All three of my brothers had training and qualifications with that gun as well as the m-16 when it came out. They all loved those .30 calibers .

110 grain bullets typically have 1900 to 1990 FPS at the muzzle while the 90 grain hollow points have a 2400 + fps at the muzzle- entering the "hot rod" categories.

The M1 carbine, still being produced today. Still with the original look , parts, and finishes. More were produced for WW11 than any other gun, including the M1 Garande .

And meanwhile, S Korea for instance is setting on warehouses full of them- made here in America, that are now banned by the feds to import back to us, and we are still making them here in the USA..

The cost of an original 1940's model can run on the beater side of 2000.00, to the cherry side of 6500.00 and upwards.

Ive never shot an animal at 300 yards let alone farther, so i do plan to get an antelope or deer with that lil rifle.

Yeah, well, that's why I'm not posting on the "what is mind" thread. It's impossible to have a serious, rigorous discussion without "length." And that means that the thread-attention-span is a deal-killer.